Re: MD Our Immoral Supreme Court

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jul 02 2005 - 13:51:16 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Our Immoral Supreme Court"

    Hi Mark M:
    > 1.
    >
    > Mark:
    > I feel very uneasy about what it means to be able to
    > posses anything as one's own - i am uneasy even about
    > self. How can a selfless person own anything?
    >
    > Platt:
    > A selfish person places a high value on freedom for
    > himself and others.
    >
    > Mark 1-7-05:
    > Hello Platt,
    > I did not say 'unselfish' i said selfless as in 'no
    > self.'

    How can there be a no self without a presupposed self?

    > We, as relationships of sq patterns responding to, and
    > migrating towards DQ, may be said to 'be'. That is
    > 'who' we are - events in the event stream.
    >
    > Platt:
    > To say we are merely events in an event stream
    > denigrates the moral value of human beings, not only
    > on Pirsig's scale of values, but in the Founding
    > Fathers vision of individual human rights.
    >
    > Mark 1-7-05:
    > I did not say we are 'merely' anything. YOU are saying
    > this, not me. I do not trivialise Events in the event
    > stream in this way.
    > Very much the opposite: Creativity, art, intellectual
    > and dynamic beauty, intellectual enquiery in general
    > are of the highest quality. In fact, these events are
    > what distinguish Humans.
    > The MOQ, has much to say which supports this as an
    > intellectual position. I am sorry if you cannot
    > recognise this Platt.

    Please cite where Pirsig says that human beings are "events."

    > The founding fathers are a socialy revered myth and i
    > am more concerned with their intellectual climate
    > rather than an appeal to paternal authority.

    Myth? Are you saying the signers of the Declaration of Independence
    and the beliefs they expressed are figments of imagination?

    > You and i
    > have the advantage of 200+ years of advances at our
    > disposal in that regard.

    What "advances" in political theory do you have in mind?
     
    > We may be said to 'own' that which we care about and
    > cultivate a mutually enriching relationship with. So,
    > Mr. Pirsig 'owns' 'his' motorcycle or boat because he
    > migrates towards DQ with them and maintains them at
    > their best. 'I' 'own' my guitar because i have played
    > it for about 20 years and it fits 'me' like that glove
    > in ZMM - we are old friends.
    >
    > Platt:
    > I also cherish my possessions (I play the guitar, too)
    > for they grant me freedom to do many things which I
    > otherwise could not.
    >
    > Mark 1-7-05:
    > I did not say i cherished my possessions. I gave a
    > description of ownership based upon mutually enriching
    > relationships.
    > What i do value is my ability to play a guitar i have
    > cultivated a quality relationship with. I wish to
    > extend this description and see what happens.

    Are you against owning the chair you sit on, the computer you compute on,
    the plate you eat on, the shoes you walk on, the watch you tell time on,
    the phone you talk on, etc., etc. etc., the common, ordinary, everyday
    possessions that support your life?

    > Platt:
    > Keep in mind that a slave by definition is person
    > denied the right to own property.
    >
    > Mark 1-7-05:
    > A slave is owned by another Human being. That is the
    > definition of a slave.

    Yes. That's the other side of same coin. A slave doesn't own his own body.
    Are you against owning the property in your own person and the work of
    your person? (Of course, that would require admitting to existence of a
    "self.")
     
    > I feel uneasy about owning anything that is simply
    > regarded as mine because i am at social liberty to
    > deny other people.
    > Those who own a great deal of land and wealth can not
    > possibly form caring and mutually enriching
    > relationships with every aspect of that which they
    > own, because there simply isn't enough time to be that
    > good with all of it.

    Am I correct to assume that the highest good in your view are "caring and
    mutually enriching relationships." If so, what political system do you
    believe allows the most freedom to form such relationships?

    Platt

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 02 2005 - 13:51:08 BST